On the Kabul Airstrike Investigation's Findings

 

In August, I wrote my second post on the media coverage of the airstrike conducted by the US targeting a suspect ISIS-K member responsible for planning the Kabul airport attack. At the time, the US government believed that it had successfully killed the target and was unaware of any civilian casualties. However, the Wall Street Journal article that I analyzed included original reporting that contradicted the government's comments. Now, the government has released the findings of its investigation into the strike, confirming that it did not in fact kill any ISIS-K members and that ten Afghan civilians were innocent victims of the attack. This week, I have analyzed the same three sources that I used in that second post to see how their reporting on the government's findings compares to their initial reporting on the airstrike.

Tends to skew right:

Fox News: “General says it is unlikely ISIS-K members killed in August Kabul drone strike: 'A tragic mistake'”

The biggest difference I noticed between this headline and the others I analyzed is that Fox focuses on the fact that ISIS-K members were not killed rather than that Afghan citizens were killed by the drone strike. This highlights the complete failure of the strike since the point was to retaliate against the attacks by ISIS on the Kabul airport. General McKenzie’s “a tragic mistake” quote further elevates the drama of the situation and shows the government’s regret for what they have done. The majority of the article itself relies on quotes from authority figures who explain how the attack went wrong. General McKenzie and Secretary of Defense Austin’s statements are prominently featured, as is General Milley’s admission that the attack was a “horrible tragedy.” The article makes a point to mention that Milley had previously hailed it as a “righteous strike” prior to the details of ten civilian deaths emerging. This shows that the government’s intel was not as strong as they believed and suggests some ineptitude.

The authors close with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s earlier comments that the strike demonstrates the “over the horizon” military capabilities of the US and is “where our resources and our focus” will be. It lets this quote speak for itself, not adding any commentary or updated statements from Psaki. While it is somewhat misleading not to include Psaki’s most recent comments on the attack, ending with her previous comments is a bold way to leave the reader with a reminder of the government’s mistakes. Overall, this article does not leave much room for bias because it draws heavily from the statements of government leaders on the strike investigation. It is, however, framed more to highlight the failures of the government than the tragedy of innocent lives lost. 

Trends toward the center:

Wall Street Journal: "U.S. Military Acknowledges Kabul Drone Strike Killed 10 Civilians, Including Seven Children"

This headline centers the fact that the death toll of the drone strike was higher than the government originally admitted, which is especially interesting considering that the Wall Street Journal article I featured in my 2nd post back in August actually included reporting about seven children being victims of the strike. In other words, the anonymous sources featured in that article were correct! This article utilizes details from Central Command’s investigation of the strike, such as that the US tracked a white Toyota Corolla for 8 hours before targeting it. Another notable detail is that the large secondary explosion which the military originally took as proof of explosives in the vehicle is now actually believed to have been caused by a nearby propane tank. Numerous Afghan eyewitnesses from the strike site are mentioned, confirming the civilian death toll. 

The article concludes by stating that a Pentagon investigation is underway to determine if anyone should be held accountable for the incident. Overall, this piece builds on the Wall Street Journal’s previous reporting on the strike by adding statements from authority figures that validate the Journal’s journalistic integrity. 

Tends to skew left:

CNN: "US military admits it killed 10 civilians and targeted wrong vehicle in Kabul airstrike"

Much like the previous article, this CNN headline makes the military the subject of the sentence, thus placing the blame for this situation’s outcome on the failure of that institution. The choice of the verb “admits” insinuates that guilt is a logical response here, again conditioning the reader to question the government’s choices in pursuing the airstrike. When looking at the content of the article itself, I was surprised that it didn’t mention that seven children were included in the death toll until the 2nd paragraph, as this is an especially crucial and tragic aspect of the attack. That said, the article does not shy away from the attack’s harsh reality. It notes that the “Pentagon's announcement will likely fuel more criticism of the Biden administration's chaotic evacuation of Kabul” and that the situation “provides insight into the obstacles ahead for military and intelligence officials” in Afghanistan. Comments from Generals McKenzie and Milley provide the details of the military’s report while CNN incorporates some original reporting through anonymous quotes from US officials who say that ten civilian deaths is “astronomically high” and that the US would have conducted collateral damage reports prior to the attack and thus been aware of the possibility of those civilian casualties.

Unlike the other articles, CNN includes responses from outside actors, particularly Amnesty International and House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff. Both of these sources are pressing the US government to further investigate the botched strike, with Amnesty International’s senior crisis advisor stating that “anyone suspected of criminal responsibility should be prosecuted in a fair trial.” Ultimately, this article weaves together the comments of multiple sources to provide a well-rounded look at the strike and where it went wrong. While it does not demonstrate any major bias, it doesn’t include any responses from Republican leaders to balance out those it mentions from Democrats and Biden’s administration. 

My balanced take:

On Friday September 17th, US Central Command released a report confirming that the August 29th airstrike in Kabul killed ten civilians and did not, as previously believed, kill any suspected ISIS-K members. The airstrike was in retaliation for the Kabul airport attacks that killed 13 American service members and numerous Afghan citizens. In the initial announcement of the airstrike, the US government stated that it believed it killed the intended target, a ISIS-K member who was supposedly involved in planning the airport attack and may be assisting with future attacks. Now, the investigation results and reporting from the Wall Street Journal suggests that the target killed in the airstrike was actually an innocent Afghan aid worker and that seven nearby Afghan children were also casualties of the strike. No ISIS-K members were killed by the strike. US General Frank McKenzie has since called the situation a “tragic mistake” and apologized for its outcome. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has promised a thorough investigation into circumstances of the attack, but it is unclear if those responsible will face any repercussions outside of admitting the mistake.